I've lurked on this board on occasion inthe past. Recently, I've been asked by a member here to post on what I believe is an important issue to all who ever had or want to fish or relax on the beach at Cape Hatteras . Maybe I'm "preaching to the choir." Maybe not.

The Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) and the National Audubon Society have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the National Park Service in US District Court in North Carolina. This motion demands that ORV's be prohibited from accessing many of the prime fishing areas in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The DOW and Audubob Society calim the NPS has failed to delop a management plan for ORV use and a plan to protect "critical nesting areas " for shore birds (yes, the piper plover - again). If the requested injunction is issued, the following areas would be closed to all recreation:

Areas would be closed to all beach driving year-round until a new critical species managment plan and ORV use plan is approved. This could last as long as 3 years.

An interesting twist: DOW and Audubon Society, along with 30 other fishing, recreational, tourism, State and County governments and civic groups are involved in a two-pronged process to develop an ORV management and an Evirnomnmental Impact plan. DOW and Audubon Society are also involed in the negotiated regulations committee (regneg) designed to work out the issues of a beach driving plan.

While regneg is a long and contentious process, DOW and Audubon have exercised a nuclear option: ask a judge to prohibit all beach driving while negotiating with the very groups they are working with to develop a ORV management plan! That surely is a great way to persuade the other side to see their point (heavy sarcasm intended).

If you were to read page 9, lines 6-11 of the Conference transcript, you will see that the judged ripped into the attorney representing Hyde and Dare counties. Judge Boyle does not appear sympathetic to the negative economic impact a beach access ban would have on the residents of those counties that include CHNS.

Arguements on he injunction will be heard late next week. The judge will announce his decision April 3. IMHO, I'm looking at a glass that is half empty.

Now is the time to contact an organization that will represent your right to beach access via an ORV in a National park. A park that is supported by all taxpayers. Fight the special interests that wants you, the person who pays for the park, to stay out of the park.

These organizations are on your side. Use your favorite search engine to find the websites. Contact and support one.

Welcome and thank you.
Now more than ever we need to stick together.
The number 1 tool the anti-environmentals have is a boat load of cash. The money they can spend on salaries and lobbying efforts is staggering. Huge foundations like PEW have 100's falling out of their pockets. Big oil companies like BP and Exxon give these foundations a few million a year, write it off, and then do a commercial about how they are helping the environment. They dont care how its used. Its guilt/blood money. Meanwhile as a ssfff board member pointed out Valdez Alaska still has gotten no money from that disaster.

Seem hopeless? Here is the good news. We the true, environmentalists, have two very important things on our side.
First we are right. Never underestimate the power of this. Second there are millions of us. If I had a choice between 1 dollar and 1 man, I would pick the latter every time!

The danger to us right now is us!! We need to stop fighting amongst each other. Jetty guys v. boat guys, penn v. VS, bait v. plug, state v. state, stupid message boards v. stupid message boards. Fisherman hide stuff from each other. That makes sense,,,,ONLY MOST OF THE TIME, NOT ALL OF THE TIME! This is one of those times.

Every fight from the grouper in Fla, to the MPAs in Cally, to the OBX to the fluke, to the bears; IS THE SAME FIGHT!

Please welcome George as a brother in arms. Please become involved. If you have never been the type to be political, realize if you love to hunt, trap and fish the politics have come to you! You have no choice. The blitzkrieg forces are massing on the border. It is time to stop this madness and take back our rightful place as the true environmentalists.

Welcome and Thanks for the info.We have too may rights take from us and its time to strike back. I could never understand how my Country, State, County or whatever makes so many decisions for me. I was never asked by the people I put in office.This is really starting to scare me.We have to stand together on issues and START caring.Ladies and Gents, they aren't going away.

Sorry, Glad you finally decided to post instead just lurk, we need good people on our site.. Joe

Hi, George. Good post. If Boyle rules against beach buggies it will be over turned. He is on record as saying that vehicles do not belong on a beach and is personal friends with one of the plaintiffs. His attempts to legislate from the bench have been over ruled 100 times before. He exists only to make his buds feel good.

Bob I'm glad you posted about Boyle. I read over the complete transcript of the hearing and motion for the injunction and was stunned. George was not overstating the point that the Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife went for "the nuclear option."

An injunction would be an economic catastrophe for the Outer Banks.

Question: I see on new post in the OBX forum a request to complete a questionnaire for the NPS however the due dates are all in the past. Should we still complete them and mail them in?

BTW: How ironic are the sections of this unique National Park Service Centennial stamp of Cape Hatteras from 1972?

Hi George,
Welcome to SSc! I'm sure you will enjoy it here!
Though I have never been to the Outer Banks, what you posted is sure to come up in the places I do fish. As Wildbob said, any ruling by Judge Boyle will probably be oXXXXXrned by a higher court , due to his connections to those making the plea before him, and whatever connections they might have.
It's sad that those with some type of power such as judges would use that to further their personal beliefs, rather than rule on what the majority who put them there want.

The plaintiffs in this suit are also on the rule making committee. That's what has the NPS upset with them. I think it is lose/lose for them. When congress enacts any environment type law, it also gives these groups carte blanche to sue over it and still keep their 501(c)3 IRS status. The general public and other groups don't get this privilege. Only them. They can try to out sue the access groups' treasury.

In the rule making aspect, they are making it a major point of having the word "Recreational" removed from Outer Banks Recreational Seashore. They are publicly silent on anything access that comes up. They want it gone.

George: Links to news or information sources does not violate any rules.

Judge Boyle must be quite a character, originally from New Jersey (bad), family association with arch conservative Jesse Helms, appointed by Reagan, then Bush Sr. Appears to be a conservative until we get to the Environment. Must be a "tree hugger."

Quote:

In the interim, Boyle has made some rulings that defied his categorization as a hard-line conservative. He pleased environmental organizations this year by halting construction of a Navy jet practice runway near a bird refuge that is the winter home of thousands of Canadian snow geese and tundra swans. Boyle said the Navy had done a flawed study of the project's environmental impact.

"I've been impressed with Judge Boyle's willingness to understand the underlying law in often-complex cases," said Derb Carter, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented conservation groups opposed to the project.

Right now it looks like a wait and see position but it doesn't look good. Perhaps the real problem is the National Park Service, life would be easier for them if there was no one on the beaches.

What puzzles me is the apparant turn-around by Judge Boyle as a advocate of "states-rights" . The grilling of Mr. Liebesman depicts the judge as anything but. Surely, the interests of the people whose livelihoods depend on beach access is an issue for the state residents, and the state should (as they are) act as amicus curiae.

The National Parks Service (NPS) has filed it's response to the DOW/National Audubon Society's request for preliminary injunction that seeks banning of ORV access at CPHS. The full text can be found here:

While the NPS does not dispute certain claims of the plaintiffs, it does make these points (page 5)(n.b.: emphasis is mine, not found in the original):

"... But, as the Court is aware, a judge is not ??mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of the law.?? Nat?l Audubon Soc?y v. Dept. of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 200 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313). The Court ?must look to traditional principles of equity to determine what form of injunctive relief, if any, is appropriate to remedy a [regulatory] violation.? Id. An injunction ??should be tailored to restrain no more than what is reasonably required to accomplish its ends[,]?? and can be overly broad ?if it restricts nonharmful actions - even ones that are precursors to other actions that are potentially harmful. Id. at 201 (quoting S.C. Dep?t of Wildlife & Marine Res. v. Marsh, 866 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1989)).

Federal Defendants question whether Plaintiffs? proposed injunction, adopting the restrictions set forth in Option B of the United States Geological Survey Management Protocols, is the appropriate relief, given the Court?s duty to ?pay particular regard for the public consequences of employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.? Nat?l Audubon Soc?y, 422 F.3d at 201 (quoting S.C. Dep?t of Wildlife & Marine Res., 866 F.2d at 100).